With Elizabeth Stuart as monarch, might the English Civil War have been avoided? [Spectator article]

[Athelstane]

An interesting alt-timeline I had never considered, prompted by a review in the Spectator of Nadine Akkerman's new biography of Elizabeth Stuart, Elizabeth Stuart: Queen of Hearts (OUP, pp. 640, £20). Elizabeth, for refresher's sake, was the second-eldest child of James I, and his oldest daughter who ended up married off to Frederick V of the Palatinate just in time to help him unwittingly kick off the Thirty Years War. Should Charles have pre-deceased James, Elizabeth would have been next in line for the throne. (Charles and Elizabeth were James' only children to survive into adultood.)

Kate Malby does not develop her thesis any farther than her book review requires:

Not only did Elizabeth Stuart model herself on Elizabeth I, but throughout her life English writers praised her as that queen’s reincarnation. Underscoring this biography is the implication that they were right to do so, and that the Scottish-born princess could have done a far better job of ruling the three kingdoms than her younger brother, Charles I. But she never got the chance.​

​

...Having established her heroine’s identification with Elizabeth I, she also misses a few correspondences which could have strengthen her argument. Observing the politics of the early civil war, Elizabeth Stuart was surely adapting her godmother’s motto when she wrote: ‘I hear all and say nothing.’ And in her family portrait by Gerard van Honthorst, I suspect her decision to have herself shown trampling a figure of Medusa owed something to a Tudor tradition in which Medusa represented Catholicism, crushed by Elizabeth I.​

The snarky answer might be that one could hardly do worse in managing Parliament than Charles I did in the 1630's and 40's. And Elizabeth, especially if she really was able to sustain her modelling of her Tudor forebear, would certainly be a more sympathetic sovereign antagonist. She also seems to have been less likely to Laudian excess in her religion -- which may well have avoided the Bishops Wars, if nothing else. The problem is, the political dynamic emerging in the English Parliament in the 17th century had deep and rapidly developing social roots. I'm less sanguine that a clash could have been avoided; but it might well have been delayed and channeled in significantly different ways.

Also, of course, the role of her husband Frederick would be a wild card - a wild card Good Queen Bess never had to deal with.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

@VVD0D95 @Valena

 

[VVD0D95]

A confrontation between crown and parliament was likely to happen. Elizabeth I had ensured that by her abuse of the monopolies and by not executing opposition from the start. James I spending made matters worse.
And if Liz is the queen thay means her husband has to abandon the palatinate. No way does parliament want to cough up the money for reclaiming it

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

If one assumes that her brother Charles lives until ~1625, minimizing butterflies and knock-ons, then Elizabeth becomes heir presumptive, and with James unlikely to marry again (he's 59 and been widowed for six years), she's de facto heir apparent. I think she comes to England/Scotland; unlike James, or OTL George I, she has no other realm to rule over while waiting to succeed, and the Palatinate household are dependent on English subsidies.

She would arrive with her exiled husband Frederick V in tow. One suspects he'll be a bad, or at least awkward influence. As a Calvinist, he would be religiously sympathetic to the Puritans (and Elizabeth more so than Charles); also the Scots Presbyterians, so no Bishops' Wars. But he would IMO encourage the Queen's autocratic tendencies, and also continually lobby for English support in regaining the Palatinate by intervention in the Thirty Years War. Plus there would be the expenses of his court in exile. Quite annoying.

Still, the conflict probably doesn't go hot in her lifetime. Her eldest son Frederick Henry is a blank slate (he died by accident at 15), but her second son Charles Louis was a piece of work. If he were to succeed, there'd be a blow-up.

(Fun WI: Frederick, repeatedly stiffed in England, takes his case up to Scotland, and somehow persuades the Scots Parliament to grant him military support for his cause in Germany. This is around 1638, and Montrose is appointed commander of the expedition. He'd be just old enough. Or he's deputy commander, and the original commander dies or is disabled.)

 

[ordinarylittleme]

A confrontation between crown and parliament was likely to happen. Elizabeth I had ensured that by her abuse of the monopolies and by not executing opposition from the start. James I spending made matters worse.
And if Liz is the queen thay means her husband has to abandon the palatinate. No way does parliament want to cough up the money for reclaiming it

Abuse of the monopolies?
Also why exactly will her husband abandon the Palatinate? It will ensure more power for the dynasty themselves

 

[Maeglin]

Abuse of the monopolies?
Also why exactly will her husband abandon the Palatinate? It will ensure more power for the dynasty themselves

Yes, abuse of the monopolies. Elizabeth I was not popular by the time of her death.

 

[Maeglin]

The best way of averting the Civil War is have the Gunpowder Plot succeed. That leaves you with a young Charles I in thrall to his surviving (mostly Scottish) advisers, a much stronger Crown, and a much weaker Parliament.

As for Elizabeth Stuart - there's a case for suggesting she'd have been worse than Charles. Charles' early experience of being dicked around by Parliament meant that he needed to find other ways of raising cash, and most importantly, economising. Thus he sat out the Thirty Years War, and could have managed pretty much indefinitely if Laud had half a brain. With Liz, her husband basically ensures intervention in the War, which means an immediate stand-off between Crown and Parliament over cash, one that can't simply be kicked down the road, as with Charles.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

The best way of averting the Civil War is have the Gunpowder Plot succeed. That leaves you with a young Charles I in thrall to his surviving (mostly Scottish) advisers, a much stronger Crown, and a much weaker Parliament.

As for Elizabeth Stuart - there's a case for suggesting she'd have been worse than Charles. Charles' early experience of being dicked around by Parliament meant that he needed to find other ways of raising cash, and most importantly, economising. Thus he sat out the Thirty Years War, and could have managed pretty much indefinitely if Laud had half a brain. With Liz, her husband basically ensures intervention in the War, which means an immediate stand-off between Crown and Parliament over cash, one that can't simply be kicked down the road, as with Charles.

You didn't actually make a case for ELIZABETH being bad, you said her husband would be an idiot over the war but that's not her fault personally...

 

[Maeglin]

You didn't actually make a case for ELIZABETH being bad, you said her husband would be an idiot over the war but that's not her fault personally...

I meant in the sense that Elizabeth's regime might actually have brought the Civil War - or at least its flash point - forward.

As in:

• FRED: "I need cash for the War."
• LIZ: "OK, dear. Parliament, stop dicking around. I need money."
• PARLIAMENT: "Yeah, not feeling like it today."
• FRED: "I still need cash. Liz, use some creative workarounds. Wars are expensive."
• PARLIAMENT: "Oy! What do you think you're doing?"

I wasn't talking about Elizabeth's culpability as a person (for that matter, I'm one of those people who doesn't actually consider Charles I personally culpable for the Civil War, but rather blame Parliamentary overreach). I was talking about the consequences of Elizabeth being monarch.

 

[VVD0D95]

Abuse of the monopolies?
Also why exactly will her husband abandon the Palatinate? It will ensure more power for the dynasty themselves

Because parliament won’t provide the funds necessary for a proper campaign

 

[spkaca]

Also, of course, the role of her husband Frederick would be a wild card - a wild card Good Queen Bess never had to deal with.

All this assumes that she still gets married to the Elector. If Henry & Charles were both to die in 1612, before she gets married, it becomes doubtful whether she would still marry Frederick, as she becomes a far more important figure. She might either remain unmarried (imitating Elizabeth I) or marry someone else. Possibly Frederick Henry of Nassau? He was unmarried OTL until 1625.

 

[Athelstane]

A confrontation between crown and parliament was likely to happen. Elizabeth I had ensured that by her abuse of the monopolies and by not executing opposition from the start. James I spending made matters worse.

No, this is a good point. Elizabeth had the good fortune of dying before things really came to a head. The train was headed down the tracks. As it was, she had to exert herself (for the last time) to defend the crown on this point in 1601.

And if Liz is the queen thay means her husband has to abandon the palatinate. No way does parliament want to cough up the money for reclaiming it

Well, in fairness, Frederick never got it back in our timeline, either...

It is hard to sort out how this would have played out with Frederick without known the exact circumstances in which Charles dies, and Elizabeth comes to the throne. (Or, what if Charles doesn't die until 1632 - and dies childless - when Frederick dies, and Elizabeth only comes to the throne then?)

And how hard would Elizabeth work to help Frederick's cause? There's an ironic possibility here, if she indeed avoids the Bishops Wars, but puts herself right back in the soup by getting deep in debt to help out Frederick. But this is the possibility @Anarch King of Dipsodes points out up above.

Then again, Frederick might die off on campaign even earlier here, and might make the whole problem moot.

 

[Athelstane]

All this assumes that she still gets married to the Elector. If Henry & Charles were both to die in 1612, before she gets married, it becomes doubtful whether she would still marry Frederick, as she becomes a far more important figure. She might either remain unmarried (imitating Elizabeth I) or marry someone else. Possibly Frederick Henry of Nassau? He was unmarried OTL until 1625.

Just so. It really does depend on the point of departure here, and that could even be before 1612.

It could also be in 1629, with a Elizabeth succeeding her brother Charles I on the throne because Charles II is not born yet. Frederick has his boat accident on the Haarlemmermeer at this point; maybe the butterflies drown him, or incapacitate him for longer?

​

 

[ordinarylittleme]

All this assumes that she still gets married to the Elector. If Henry & Charles were both to die in 1612, before she gets married, it becomes doubtful whether she would still marry Frederick, as she becomes a far more important figure. She might either remain unmarried (imitating Elizabeth I) or marry someone else. Possibly Frederick Henry of Nassau? He was unmarried OTL until 1625.

While she becomes a more important figure she will need to wed, as unlike Elizabeth I, there is no convenient heir nearby...

 

[NedStark]

The best way of averting the Civil War is have the Gunpowder Plot succeed. That leaves you with a young Charles I in thrall to his surviving (mostly Scottish) advisers, a much stronger Crown, and a much weaker Parliament.

As for Elizabeth Stuart - there's a case for suggesting she'd have been worse than Charles. Charles' early experience of being dicked around by Parliament meant that he needed to find other ways of raising cash, and most importantly, economising. Thus he sat out the Thirty Years War, and could have managed pretty much indefinitely if Laud had half a brain. With Liz, her husband basically ensures intervention in the War, which means an immediate stand-off between Crown and Parliament over cash, one that can't simply be kicked down the road, as with Charles.

She also seems to have been less likely to Laudian excess in her religion -- which may well have avoided the Bishops Wars, if nothing else.

She would arrive with her exiled husband Frederick V in tow. One suspects he'll be a bad, or at least awkward influence. As a Calvinist, he would be religiously sympathetic to the Puritans (and Elizabeth more so than Charles); also the Scots Presbyterians, so no Bishops' Wars. But he would IMO encourage the Queen's autocratic tendencies, and also continually lobby for English support in regaining the Palatinate by intervention in the Thirty Years War. Plus there would be the expenses of his court in exile. Quite annoying

So, an English Civil War without religious struggles?

 

[Athelstane]

So, an English Civil War without religious struggles?

I hesitate to go that far.

A lot depends on just *when* Elizabeth becomes heir - and becomes Queen.

The Civil War radicalized an already fragmenting religious scene in England, with Millenarian sects popping up like weeds; and then the Scottish dynamic is different. I do think we can say the religious dimensions would, at least, have played out with significant differences if Arminianism and the Bishops War are removed from the table?

Elizabeth *is* a fascinating figure to think about in religious terms: in 1605 she was enough of a cypher that she became the planned Catholic heir to the throne for the Gunpowder Plotters; but only 15 years later she was the Winter Queen, the Protestant heroine of Germany. Amazing to think about!

I am by no means an Elizabeth Stuart expert, but my sense is that while she never adopted her husband's Calvinism, she also did not appear to share her father's Arminianism, let alone her brother's crypto-Catholicism. So I tend to seriously doubt she will impose episcopacy or ritualism on the Scottish Kirk, for starters.

 

[NedStark]

I am by no means an Elizabeth Stuart expert, but my sense is that while she never adopted her husband's Calvinism, she also did not appear to share her father's Arminianism, let alone her brother's crypto-Catholicism. So I tend to seriously doubt she will impose episcopacy or ritualism on the Scottish Kirk, for starters

Her husband's Calvanism would help, though. Note that Henrietta's Catholicism was very unpopular among English folks IOTL.

The Civil War radicalized an already fragmenting religious scene in England, with Millenarian sects popping up like weeds; and then the Scottish dynamic is different. I do think we can say the religious dimensions would, at least, have played out with significant differences if Arminianism and the Bishops War are removed from the table?

Probably the religious aspects would be downplayed compared to things like Parliament rights and taxation (especially if her marriage with Frederick drags England into Thirty Years' War), as well as the commercial class' opposition to royal monopolies. The TTL Commonwealth of England would be likely a commercial/maritime republic rather than Puritan Killjoy, although Puritanism would remain a factor in play.

 

[Theoretical_TJ]

Yeah the English church was broadly Calvinistic and fairly in line with the continental Reformed churches until Laud and the Arminian crowd started taking hold and reintroducing higher church and more Catholic liturgical innovations with a high hand and those were not popular innovations.

Simply staying the Elizabethan course takes a huge amount of pressure out of the system that of course could be replaced by the 30 years war or financial profligacy.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

In the alt history compendium "What If 2" there is an essay by Theodore Rabb with Elizabeth assuming the throne in August 1641 because an outbreak of plague kills Charles I and his family. In this essay she is able to defuse the situation and avert the ECW.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

I am by no means an Elizabeth Stuart expert, but my sense is that while she never adopted her husband's Calvinism...

Didn't she practice Reformed religion from her marriage until at least her return to England just before her death? And her religious convictions were quite strong.

She practically disowned her son Edward of Simmern for becoming a Catholic to marry Anne Gonzague (though they reconciled later). And she was horrified when her daughter Louise Hollandine ran off and became a Catholic nun. She did accept the marriage of her youngest daughter Sophia to the Lutheran (future) Prince-Elector of Hanover (who became Prince-Bishop of Osnabruck), so she can't have been utterly rigid.

As Queen Regnant in England, she'd favor the "presbyterian" side, but tend to hold back rather than completely alienate the "High Church" side. (Is that term is appropriate?)